The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage of an investigation on the grounds of alleged procedural irregularities or purported animosity, particularly when there is prima facie evidence supporting the commission of an offence. The Court said that the existence of corroborating evidence, such as the red-handed recovery of incriminating material (the IMFL bottles) and witness statements, establishes a prima facie case that warrants a full investigation.
Mere procedural irregularities, especially those concerning discretionary guidelines (where the term ‘may’ is used), do not vitiate the proceedings unless they cause absolute prejudice to the accused, and are not a sufficient ground to quash an FIR without allowing the investigation to reach its logical conclusion, clarified the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the prosecution’s case is supported by the recovery of two bottles of brandy with specific hologram numbers from the petitioner’s office during the surprise check. Further, a witness, named Anoop Antony, a staff member at the Palluruthi Beverages Corporation Outlet, provided a statement that these bottles were handed over to the petitioner following a demand. Thus, the Bench observed that the demand and acceptance of brandy bottles, as alleged, constitute an illegal gratification or an undue pecuniary advantage.
The Bench dismissed the arguments of the petitioner that the complaint was motivated by animosity, evidenced by six reports he had filed against the complainant regarding the failure to sell old stock, by observing that since unopened IMFL does not have a formal expiry date, the petitioner’s claim of ‘loss to the Government’ lacks significance.
As far as the contention of the petitioner that the surprise check violated G.O.(P) No. 65/92/Vig. because no officer from the Excise Department was included, the Bench analysed Clause 16 of the said Government Order and noted that the word used is “may”, not “shall”, indicating that the provision is discretionary and not mandatory. The Bench, therefore, concluded that opting for an officer from another department did not constitute a procedural irregularity.
Briefly, the petitioner, the first accused in Crime No. 04/2025/EKM of V.A.C.B, Ernakulam Unit, filed a petition to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings against him. The case was initiated based on a complaint from Manager of FL 09 Warehouse, alleging that the petitioner and two other excise officials were demanding bribes in the form of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) bottles for issuing transport permits.
Following the complaint, a surprise check was conducted on the same day, during which two bottles of IMFL were recovered from the petitioner’s bag and two more from another accused officer’s office table. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018.
The petitioner contended that the allegations were impossible, as the specific liquor bottles recovered were part of a consignment that was fully accounted for at another location. He also claimed the case was filed due to animosity arising from reports he had previously filed against the complainant.
Appearances:
Advocates V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham, Sreeganesh U., and Atheesha M.V., for the Petitioner/ Accused
Special Public Prosecutor Rekha S. and Rajesh, for the Respondent
